2015 (1) TMI 69 - HC - Customs

Power of Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days - Held that - In view of the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India (2014 (7) TMI 738 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) it can be concluded that the Tribunal did not lack the power to extend stay beyond 365 days from the initial date of granting stay. However if the stand of the revenue is that such extension was without recording reasons or without passing speaking order as required by the decision of this Court in case of Commissioner vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India (supra) it would be open for the Department to move a rectification application before the Tribunal. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of stay beyond 365 days - violation of statutory provisions.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to extend the stay by six months beyond the initial 365-day period, as allowed by Section 129B(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The revenue contended that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by extending the stay beyond the statutory limit. However, the High Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the Tribunal could extend the stay beyond 365 days under certain circumstances. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must review the situation every 180 days and consider extension applications on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that the appellant cooperates and does not cause undue delays. The Tribunal was directed to maintain a separate register for cases with stay orders and prioritize their disposal, particularly when the stay is against the revenue.

The department argued that the Tribunal's decision lacked proper reasoning and was passed mechanically. Citing a previous judgment, the High Court agreed that the Tribunal must provide a speaking and reasoned order when extending a stay. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders within two months, ensuring that the stay orders remain in effect during this period. The Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the appeals promptly, even during the extended stay period.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had the authority to extend the stay beyond 365 days but emphasized the importance of recording reasons and passing speaking orders. If the revenue believed that the extension lacked proper justification, they were advised to file a rectification application before the Tribunal. The tax appeal was disposed of with these observations, clarifying the Tribunal's powers and procedural requirements regarding stay extensions.